December 2008

December 31, 2008

I thought I'd post a picture that shockingly proves there are ghosts walking around in Pompei, Italy (if you look closely, you can see him, toga and all, just behind my son and me)!(click on the picture to enlarge)

December 30, 2008

In the smash-hit movie Titanic a few years ago, moviemakers combined fiction with history. As usual, the history wasn't exactly accurrate. Tellingly, though, was the way in which the actual history was tweaked.

Most viewers of the film will remember the scene when the first class passengers rushed aboard the lifeboats. Only through the efforts of tough men with clubs was it even possible to get the women and children aboard the boats first. Terrible. Unthinkable. Unfair.

Also: untrue.

We like it when our political misconceptions are reinforced. Popular media wouldn't be so popular if it didn't pander to our high opinion of ourselves and our society by feeding us what we want. That particular scene in the movie gratified viewers by showing them how unfair things were in the past compared to today's enlightened and egalitarian times. It also played right along with loathing 'the rich,' something common in political discourse today.

What actually happened was that the men aboard nearly unanimously adhered to the chivalric notion of 'women and children first,' and they did so in an orderly, heroic fashion. According to author Fareed Zakaria:

"In first class, every child was saved, as were all but 5 (of 144) women, 3 of whom chose to die with their husbands. By contrast, 70 percent of the men in first class perished. In second class, which was also inhabited by rich professional types, 80 percent of the women were saved but 90 percent of the men drowned. The men on the first-class list of the Titanic virtually made up the Forbes 400 of the time. John Jacob Astor, reputedly the richest man in America at the time, is said to have fought his way to a boat, put his wife in it, and then, refusing to take a seat, stepped back and waved her goodbye. Benjamin Guggenheim similarly declined a seat, yielding his place to a woman, asking only that she convey a message home: 'Tell my wife . . . I played the game out straight and to the end. No woman shall be left aboard this ship because Ben Guggenheim was a coward.' In other words, some of the most powerful men in the world adhered to an unwritten code of honor - even though it meant certain death. The movie makers altered the story for good reason: no one would believe it today."

Sad, really, that 'no one would believe it today.' So go ahead Hollywood, change history to suit the assumptions of your audience. Reinforce their ignorance and biases for the sake of entertainment.

We live in cynical times when it is hard for many to believe that there were ages before ours that had honor, codes of conduct, and self-sacrificial service as standards of success every bit as important as material trappings and fame. We fall into the assumption that society progresses steadily upward simply because that is how technology appears to proceed. But just as nostalgia for bygone days is a bit naive and oversimplified, so too should we beware that when pushing forward with false assumptions bred of cynicism we leave something behind.

What if we could mix the honor of yesterday with the advances of today? What if chivalry grew as fast as computing power? These are things leaders need to think about, because with everything new comes the threat of leaving something good behind.

I will never understand how decadance can be considered 'cool,' nor how laziness can seek justification as rebellion. How can ingratitude be disguised as victimization, or cynicism as intelligence? These are the bastardizations prevalent in our society today. And they all have something in common: they are equally pathetic.

Honor goes to the man and/or woman who works mightily toward honorable aims. There is, has been, and always will be dignity in hard work. One of success's biggest secrets is no secret at all: "Those who toil upward in the night" will beat the less committed nearly every time.

Just as predictable as the fruits of hard work is that when work is meaningful it doesn't even feel like work. The man or woman giving full effort toward meaningful endeavors gets 'caught up' in it, 'wrapped up' in it, engulfed, fanatical. They grow to love it. Predictably, this is also when the video game players, sports junkies (okay, I'm a little guilty here), passivists, lazy, unmotivated, un-goal-directed, un-purposeful bystanders will start to air their 'concerns.' "We're worried about you," they'll say, sometimes sincerely, sometimes not. "You can't keep such crazy hours." "Slow down, enjoy your life." But such statement may as well be offered up in a foreign language. To the truly inspired, they will fall on deaf ears.

Try to stop Tiger Woods from pursuing his goals when he was in his prime as a golfer. Make Eli Manning stop throwing touchdowns. Go back in time and convince Michael Jordon to refrain from practicing so hard. Greatness has no answer for such obstruction, besides pity. The 'great ones' look at those who mock them, those who try to stop them, or even those who admire them, and feel sorry that these others 'don't get it.' They must be perplexed how people can fail to understand the joy and fulfillment that comes from giving one's all to a calling for which one was designed.

Don't ever shy away from hard work. Chase it down and honor it with your full intensity. Apply yourself mightily in the direction of something meaningful and honorable. You may not be understood, but you will not be disappointed.

December 28, 2008

To those only slightly familiar with the history of revolutions in the world, the word itself, 'revolution,' has a positive connotation. Most Americans are drawn back to the dawn of our country with fond admiration and respect; as it should be. Despite the fact that my team mate and co-author Orrin Woodward and I entitled one of our books, Launching a Leadership Revolution(our intention being to conjure the good meanings of 'revolution'), all revolutions aren't good. Many, many revolutions through history were bloody, unjust, horrific affairs ending in tyranny. Only a few, despite near universal propaganda to the contrary, have ever amounted to much more than 'the mob taking over.'

Take for instance the so-called French Revolution of 1789. What began in high-sounding plattitudes (at first blush similar to those of the American colonials) ended in mass murder and crowd-manic-hysteria. What was the difference? As author Fareed Zakaria wrote, "France placed the state above society, democracy above constitutionalism, and equality above liberty."

First, community and society are more important than the government. In fact, the government exists to serve society, not the other way around.

Second, democracy cannot predominate over the 'rule of law' (restraints placed on the majority so they don't infringe upon minorities).

Third, individual liberty must be protected against encroachment and/or infringement by other individuals, groups, or even the government itself. The U.S. Constitution is supposed to be a set of chains to bind the government from taking advantage of its people, not the other way around. There can never be equality of results among people; only equality of opportunity and treatment under law. People will always perform at different levels, seek different callings, and work at different objectives and accomplishments. Ensuring 'equality of results' is simply another way of embodying the concepts of Communism, and the earth has almost 100 million corpses in its soil to prove that the pipe dream of Karl Marx and his ilk has been tried and found wanting (actually, it has been tried and found murdering)!

Strange, isn't it, how things get flipped around when we are not diligent? The Constitution is supposed to protect the people from the government, but many today assume the opposite. The 'separation of church and state' concept (which, by the way, is not embodied in America's founding documents, but comes rather from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a friend), was originally meant to keep the government from establishing its own religion and forcing it upon the people; it never even referred to the concept of keeping people from bringing their religion into the government! Laws meant to protects individual freedoms increasingly get interpreted by the court system in ways that limit (and often eliminate) the freedoms of individuals.

So not all revolutions are good. Not all good sounding phrases work out in actual practice. One sure gauge is to compare any politician, platform, movement, group, or sound bite against two staggeringly different tamplates:

The first: The United States of America's "LIfe, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

December 27, 2008

I would like to propose a new boycott, directed at some of the most fiendish foes ever encountered: those irascible packaging engineers who insist on ensnaring toys with wires, tapes, blister packs, and (sometimes even) screws! Just what necessitates the complex, skin-slicing myriad of contraptions that hold toys in their packages with such ferocity? Are toy theives in the likeness of Edward Scissorhands, brigands who can slice toys from conventional packages and swipe them from stores before anyone is any the wiser? Is toy theft really such a national crisis to warrant hundreds of parental hours of extraction before an awaiting toddler can get the satisfaction of even touching his or her new gift? It must be that toy theft was once such an epidemic, because there is more engineering involved in the packaging of a simple toy car than can be found in many real cars! Wires are wound through every wheel well of toy cars, every orifice of dolls, and every arm and foot of action figures, then fed through a labrynth of cardboard, wound back upon itself, then taped to more cardboard! Then, after unwinding and cutting and pulling and tearing, the toy is about to break loose into playland freedom, but no! One last wire holds firm, ripping the toy and causing damage just at the point of the miscarried extraction! Scissors are weilded against this final wire without mercy, often causing more damage to the toy.

So let's boycott any and all toy makers who insist on wrapping their toys in such paranoid fashion. Let's teach them a lesson and put them out of work so they will head over to the auto industry and give them some bailout help, saving the automotive industry leaders the disgrace of having to grovel before self-important U.S. senators who couldn't even spell the term 'business plan' if they had it written in crayon on their bibs. We could consider it our patriotic duty, for crying out loud!

What do I propose that we get as gifts in the meantime? Good question. And thankfully, an answer is at hand. It seems that there was once a lobby of boycotters who also got sick of packaging engineers and their mutated creations. These boycotters focused their rage on the packaging of the CD and DVD industry. How many of us haven't ended up with small sticky pieces of plastic under our fingernails after mangling the cover of a DVD? Or broken the plastic hinge on a CD by pulling and prying on the ridiculously tight shrink-wrapped plastic? Yessir, it's no stretch at all to see why millions of music customers decided to boycott such products and head straight for digital downloads! That showed them! (From what I can figure, it sent thousands of packaging engineers into the toy industry). So I propose we take a page out the playbook of the customers of the music industry. I propose that we boycott the packaging-heavy toy industry by insisting on buying only toys that can be digitally downloaded!

And if the toy industry doesn't have the technology yet, they can just head to Capitol Hill themselves, take a number, and ask for a loan.

December 24, 2008

The Roman Republic had just become an empire. Caesar Augustus ruled a nearly uncontested span of territory from Egypt and Syria in the east to Spain in the west and even part of the island of Britannia in the north. In one of Rome's client kingdoms, Judea, a seemingly insignifican event took place that would nonetheless reach over history forwards and backwards and become the most talked about, most debated event in human history: the birth of a child.

Why should the birth of a little boy have such an impact upon mankind? Had this not occurred billions of times in human history?

The story is so familiar and oft-told that we can sometimes grow numb to the real scope of what occurred that day. Mankind, in all its fallenness of sin and strife, was helpless to fix its own predicament. Something was wrong inside people, but nobody could quite put a finger on it. The Greeks had pushed for virtue, the Romans for honor, and all over the earth man worshiped various kinds of gods, as if in his heart he knew there was a being far above him, more powerful, and in authority over him. The Hebrew scriptures prophesied the coming of a deliverer, but who paid attention to that? The Jews were an obscure, powerless tribe in a backwards place.

But Christ's birth was a thunderclap in the saga of mankind. It fulfilled the Jewish scriptures, and the baby boy went on to lead an incredible ministry. Jesus never wrote a book, but millions have been written about him. He never formed any formal organizations, but uncountable are the number that have been formed in his name. He traveled in a very small geographic circle, but his story has been told around the globe. Jesus's ministry itself lasted only about three years, but the reason for his ministry has rung through time.

Jesus's message was profound because He claimed to be the Son of the living God. He went on to work signs and miracles for years, fulfilling hundreds of scriptural prophecies. Utlimately, he died on a cross in a gruesome Roman punishment called crucifixion. Rising from the grave, he appeared for over forty days to people all over Jerusalem, even addressing an audience of over 500 at one time. Later, after His ascension into heaven, one of His followers, Peter, proclaimed to the crowds there assembled, "as you also saw," referring to the risen Jesus walking among them. No one refuted Peter's claim. Jesus's life is not only recorded in the Bible, but is amply supported by contemporary sources. The new testament itself is one of the most supported, well-documented, most-provably-authentic ancient manuscripts known to scolars. For instance, it has hundreds and hundreds of verifiable copies compared to just a handful for the Iliad and the Odyssey (and no one refutes those).

The thing that originally stuck in my mind was, "What if it is true?"

I have studied enough of history to know that the birth of Jesus predominates like an enormous median in the highway. You can drive by it, but you can't say it isn't there. Why such a focus? Why such dominance of one event in an obscure time in a backwater place? Why does all of recorded history seem to hover around the life of Jesus like back-story to the main event?

And finally, why do we celebrate it each year? Is it really more than just a secular holiday with a gift-giving tradition?

If you would like some good reading, which may help fill in some of the fuzzy areas for you, I would suggest the following:

1. Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis

2. Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell

3. The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel

4. Deliver Us From Evil, Ravi Zacharias

5. From Nothing to Nature, E.H. Andrews

There are many more I could recommend, but these were very beneficial to me in my own spiritual journey. Of course, I would also encourage anyone to open the Bible for themselves and just read it. If you are like I was, slightly turned-off by "religiosity," "churchianity," and hypocrites who live terrible lives but call themselves Christians, I encourage you to look past all that. Don't let people or tradition or off-track churches turn you away from the truth of all truths.

Jesus Christ was born that day the Son of God, the Savior of mankind. It is the greatest story ever told, and like all of the greatest stories, it is true!

God bless you and your family and friends during this awesome season of celebration of the greatest event in human history. Merry Christmas to you!

December 23, 2008

In the previous post I referred to author Jose Ortega y Gasset's classification of man into two distinct groups, the "mass man" (or "common man") vs. the "excellent man." As stated by Ortega,

". . . we distinguished the excellent man from the common man by saying that the former is the one who makes great demands on himself, and the latter the one who makes no demands on himself, but contents himself with what heis, and isdelighted with himself. Contrary to what is usually thought, it is the man of excellence, and not the common man who lives in essential servitude. Life has no savour for him unless he makes it consist in service to something transcendental. Hence he does not look upon the necessity of serving as an oppression. This is life lived as a discipline - the noble life. Nobility is defined by the demands it makes on us - by obligations, not by rights. Noblesse oblige. 'To live as one likes is plebian; the noble man aspires to order and law' (Goethe)."

My favorite sentence in this paragraph is "Life has no savour for him unless he makes it consist in service to something transcendental." To me, that is the very definition of excellence; the service of something larger than ourselves, something significant, meaningful, and lasting. The "excellent" people are classified as such by choice, by the way they live their lives, and the purpose for which they strive. These people make demands upon themselves, they live a strenuous life in pursuit of greatness. Why? Because without such striving "life has no savour," in essence, life has no meaning, no joy, no fulfillment.

Here lies an interesting paradox; that the comfortable, easy life has an appealing appearance. However, for most of us, living a life of peace and affluence is unfulfilling and hollow. What appears alluring is actually fools gold. Authentic satisfaction and happiness comes when we sacrifice peace and affluence on the altar of significant service, accomplishment, and striving towards the desires of our hearts. It's when a man's actions are in line with the highest opinions and aspirations he holds for himself that he will feel the most alive. In fact, it is when he is the most alive.

Strive to be excellent. Make demands upon yourself to be all you can be. Serve others and live for a higher purpose. Read, study, and challenge yourself daily to improve. We forget the hours of our lives spent in leisure, but those given in service to our calling will long be remembered by others.

December 22, 2008

After agonizingly hot summer days spent in argument and compromise, the nearly impossible happened. Delegates from the various states, with different interests, backgrounds, religions, opinions, and constituencies, had agreed on a framework of government. Ratification by each state's legislature was still necessary, and would be no easy task, but the very fact that the Constitution of the United States had been written and agreed to in some form was perhaps the high point in the history of world government.

The story is told of an elderly lady approaching Benjamin Franklin as he emerged from the final session of the Constitutional Convention, at which time she asked him the question, "What sort of government do we have, doctor?" to which he famously answered, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

The United States of America is not a Democracy. Ask any school-aged child, and most of his or her parents, however, and they will ape the word "democracy" as though it is the most obvious and pure thing in the world. This is where it is so dangerous that we do not know our history, nor understand our government. The United States of America is MOST CERTAINLY NOT a democracy, and if it ever becomes one, as it has been trending towards for seven decades, it will correspondingly cease to be free. Instead, the United States is a Republic. This is a vastly different thing from a democracy, and the distinction is extremely important.

The founders of our country were terrified of democratic rule, a situation in which the masses or majority of men vote for whatever they like in direct assault on the minorities. Protecting minority interests and the rights of the individual was the bedrock upon which the Constitution was founded. The great concern was how to allow a people to be free, how to construct a government "of the people, for the people, by the people," without allowing the passions that grip a people to take over. To do this, the Constitution of the United States, and the accompanying Bill of Rights, established very strong checks and balances and something called The Rule of Law. The Rule of Law is the concept that there are basic freedoms and rights any individual has claim to, and no matter what the desires of the majority or "masses," those individual rights must always be protected. These restrictions, so clearly outlined in those documents, are also meant to bind the government from trampling on the rights of the people, while distributing power across many leaders and branches of government. This concept has worked, and the government of the United States is the oldest government on the planet.

We must get away from the strange belief that whatever the mass of people want is in the country's best interest. U.S. governance is not simply a matter of asking, "What do most of the people want?" As if a poll could indicate righteousness. Just because a majority of people want something is no indication that it is the right thing to do. This is why it is so important to have a representative government, where the people pick the leaders and give them the power to decide policy according to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and therefore, the Rule of Law, and not according to the will of the masses. After all, the common man is commonly wrong. Our government and system of laws is there to protect us as much from him as anything or anyone else.

Just why were Franklin's words so prescient that day? Isn't it interesting how he chose to answer the lady's question? Why did he say, "If you can keep it" after telling her it was to be a Republic? Perhaps the wise old statesman knew a thing or two about human nature after all his years as a diplomat, negotiator, and legislator. Perhaps he knew that the temptation would be great for a people to take over their own government and undermine its laws of protection for the individual in the name of interest for self. Perhaps he could see how the elaborate system of government he'd helped craft could be slowly dismantled over time to serve the masses.

And what of those masses? In the early 1930's Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset wrote an instant classic entitled The Revolt of the Masses, in which he predicted the doom in Europe that was soon to follow. Ortega coined the term "mass man" to describe the type of person that comprised these waves of the majority; the majority that would vote for its crazy passions, the majority that had employed the guillotine in the French Revolution, the majority that would elect Hitler and the Nazi party to power, the majority that would bring us the Taliban. You see, any time majority rules, individuals suffer. It is the end of freedom. Whenever the "mass man" is given too much power, he always uses it against the individual and those in minority. Ortega said of the mass man:

"Previously, even for the rich and powerful, the world was a place of poverty, difficulty and danger. However rich an individual might be in relation to his fellows, as the world in its totality was poor, the sphere of conveniences and commodities with which his wealth furnished him was very limited. The life of the average man to day is easier, more convenient and safer than that of the most powerful of another age. The common man, finding himself in a world so excellent, technically and socially, believes that it has been produced by nature, and never thinks of the personal efforts of highly-endowed individuals which the creation of this new world presupposed. Still less will he admit the notion that all these facilities still require the support of certain difficult human virtues, the least failure of which would cause the rapid disappearance of the whole magnificent edifice. . . . free expansion of his vital desires . . . his radical ingratitude towards all that has made the ease of his existence . . . the impression that everything is permitted to him and that he has no obligations. . . these spoiled masses are unintelligent enough to believe that the material and social organization, placed at their disposition like the air, is of the same origin, since apparently it never fails them. . . . has caused the masses benefited therby to consider it, not as an organised, but as a natural system . Thus is explained and defined the absurd state of mind revealed by these masses; they are only concerned with their own well-being, and at the same time they remain alien to the cause of that well-being. They imagine their role is limited to demanding these benefits peremptorily, as if they were natural rights."

This is the man of whom Dr. Franklin warned us, then, and this is the man gaining control in the politics of America today. He eats his food, drinks his water, drives on the roads, and consumes everything and anything he wants without ever considering the vast structure of the Rule of Law and the sacrifices of others necessary to set him up so nicely. He does not read, he does not study nor even attempt to understand his history, nor consider the fount of his blessings, and votes accordingly. Placing his vote behind whomever promises to deliver him the most. And in this way, duplicated over millions of such "mass men," a Republic slips towards Democracy and the desolation that always follows.

December 18, 2008

Apparently the U.S. government thinks we are stupid. They continue to behave irresponsibly financially, while trying to hide what they do behind rhetoric and velvet talk about inflation and economic indexes, etc. The day of reckoning is approaching.

It's not very hard to understand, really. Think about your own finances. How long could you get away with deficit spending? (This means, quite simply, spending more than you make). What happens when the party is over? What happens when your creditors demand their money? What happens when your debt is so large you can no longer pay even the interest? The answers to those questions are exactly what they will be for our government, too, if we don't wake up and stop them from mortgaging our children's future away.

It's not complicated what they are doing. It's stupid. It's dishonest. And it's enough already.

For an introductory look at exactly what is going on, take a look at my friend and co-author Orrin Woodward's blog posting for today. Prepare to get angry.

December 15, 2008

I had heard from friends that they were tearing down the old AC Spark Plug facility, affectionately known as "The Highway." It had been over eight years since I'd even driven past the place. Then one day while in Michigan my oldest son and I were on an errand and happened to drive right down Dort Highway past the demolition. I stopped the car, got out my phone, and began taking pictures and videos.

There is something sad about a plant closing anyway, like the end of an era. But this particular plant held massive significance for me. My grandfather worked in that building for thirty-three years. During World War II, he tested machine gun munitions in the basement. When I hired in there in 1985 some of the windows were still painted black as protection against bombers from the war. Papa Floyd lived two more years, long enough to see me begin a career at "The A.C.," and he was proud. It's also where I met future business partner, friend, and co-author Orrin Woodward, when we were both young, snot-nosed engineering co-op students. There were lots of other great people there too, and my mind is literally filled with memories. My professional education as an engineer took place in that building, as well. I love cars, my first word was "car," and I have a soft-spot in my heart for the auto industry to this day. Looking back, I guess I came of age in that facility; learning how to supervise production crews, run maintenance groups, and yes, eventually, do some engineering.

I understand job shifting, I think. I have read all about the "flattening of the world" theory and how lower level manufacturing has moved off-shore and those jobs have been replaced by high-tech industry and services. I understand emerging third-world labor and the imbalances in exchange rates (don't get me started on the Federal Reserve and why this is so!). I lived and studied in Japan for a brief period to understand how East Asia had emerged as a world manufacturing leader. I also know change is inevitable. And I understand the laws of competition and market forces (at least better than the Keynsian economists in our government. For more on this, read Orrin Woodward's posting today about the Austrian school of economics). I was also directly involved with the struggle between the powerful union and the bureaucractic leadership.

Still, it was painful to watch the dismantling of so many memories. Flint, Michigan, the home of the founding of General Motors Corporation and one of the Industrial Age's largely unsung heroes, "Billy" Durant, is possibly a picture of bigger things. And these things are more serious, comlex, and less born of conspiracy than was suggested by Flint's most embarrassing offspring, Michael Moore. Flint can represent what's left over when one fails to compete. It can represent what happens when a population doesn't change with the times. It can represent what occurs when entitlement sets into a culture. It can represent the last dying embers of an older way of life. It can represent those left behind in the dynamics of world politics and competition. It can represent a changing of the guard. It can represent the end of an era.

Somewhere, somebody is manufacturing spark plugs, fuel filters, fuel level senders, instrument clusters, circuit boards, and fuel pumps. But they aren't doing it in Flint, Michigan, anymore. Hopefully, the replacement industries and jobs will be finding their way into people's lives soon. I know some good people in Genesee county who would be willing to give it another try. Perhaps that's why General Motors decided to award the new engine plant for the new Chevy "Volt" to Flint.

As I filmed the last portions of the main office being dragged down into rubble, I realized that the very section of the building I was watching come down was the exact spot where I had sat for my original interview so many years before. From youthful hope to dissimilation. The windows we had painted black to hide America's industrial might from the enemy, we eventually tore down ourselves.

As I drove away that day I noticed two things peculiar, two final salutes to the waste and attitude that had played their part in the demise: the lawn's sprinkler system was still running, and the barbed wire fences (leaning inward!) were still standing.